I am writing to state…

I am writing to state absolute and categorical opposition to Bill 60. The Bill prohibits municipalities from reallocating roadway space away from cars, even when doing so is necessary for safety, mobility, environmental protection, public health, and fiscal sustainability. This is not a minor policy error. It is a deliberate decision that will harm Ontarians.

Bill 60 makes it clear that the priority of this government is not to improve mobility or reduce congestion. The outcomes of this Bill are predictable and well documented. More driving, more injuries, more deaths, higher emissions, higher household costs, worsening congestion, and reduced accessibility for people who cannot or do not drive. When a government advances a policy that is guaranteed to worsen public safety, environmental health, and quality of life, it is impossible to interpret it as anything other than harmful. Bill 60 is cruel in both its design and its foreseeable consequences. It uses transportation policy in a way that directly harms the people it claims to represent.

The assumptions behind this Bill are entirely disconnected from reality. They rely on wishful thinking that has no basis in evidence. Not in Ontario, not in Canada, and not anywhere in the world. The overwhelming body of research shows that prioritising cars increases congestion, casualties, emissions, health care costs, and travel delays. Bill 60 rejects all of this evidence. It is a tone-deaf response to the actual transportation needs of a growing province.

Harm to People

This legislation will increase collisions, injuries, and fatalities. Cities in the United States that prioritised automobile throughput over all other modes such as Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix have some of the highest per-capita road-death rates on the continent. In contrast, cities that reallocated road space to protected cycling and pedestrian infrastructure such as Montreal, New York, Vancouver, and Seattle saw consistent reductions in deaths and injuries.

Toronto Public Health has shown repeatedly that protected bike lanes reduce collisions for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Preventing municipalities from building such infrastructure will make Ontario’s roads more dangerous.

Harm to Communities

Car-centric design weakens communities. Corridors prioritised for pedestrians, cyclists, patios, school streets, and transit generate stronger local economies and safer neighbourhoods. Toronto’s Bloor and Danforth pilot projects produced higher retail activity, reduced collisions, and increased foot traffic.

Bill 60 guarantees the opposite outcome: neighbourhoods dominated by cars, hostile streetscapes, and reduced community vitality.

Making Congestion Worse

Induced demand is an established principle across transportation research. When driving is prioritised, the number of drivers increases until congestion returns at higher volumes. Houston’s Katy Freeway expansion, the largest in North America, produced significantly worse congestion after widening.

Toronto’s congestion is already among the worst in North America. Bill 60 will intensify it by eliminating safe and viable alternatives to driving.

Cities that expanded cycling infrastructure saw reduced peak-hour car volumes. Vancouver, Montreal, Minneapolis, and New York documented congestion relief as active transportation networks grew. Bill 60 blocks these proven approaches.

Harm to the Environment

Motor vehicles are one of Ontario’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Increased car traffic will worsen air quality, raise rates of asthma and cardiovascular disease, and accelerate climate-related impacts. Cities that expanded active transportation, such as Portland and Montreal, documented measurable air-quality improvements. Ontario is choosing the opposite outcome.

Harm to People with Disabilities and Marginalised Communities

Many Ontarians do not drive because of cost, sensory barriers, disability, or accessibility challenges. Many autistic people rely on walking and cycling because cars and crowded transit environments are inaccessible. People with low incomes, newcomers, students, and older adults depend on safe active transportation.

By banning road reallocation, Bill 60 removes these mobility options and forces vulnerable residents into unsafe conditions or unaffordable modes. This is an equity failure of the highest order.

Increased Costs

Car-focused planning is the most expensive transportation model available. It produces:
- higher road maintenance and resurfacing costs
- increased collision-related costs for police, EMS, and health care
- increased disability and long-term care expenditures
- higher economic losses from congestion
- higher transportation costs for residents
- reduced business activity in neighbourhoods hostile to pedestrians

Jurisdictions across North America, including Minnesota, British Columbia, and California, have documented major cost savings when shifting trips away from single-occupancy motor vehicles.

Bill 60 guarantees higher long-term costs for municipalities, the province, and the health care system.

Summary

Bill 60 is not evidence based. It is not grounded in best practice. It is not aligned with the needs of Ontarians. It will cause predictable and preventable harm. It will increase casualties, worsen congestion, undermine equity, reduce community well-being, weaken local economies, and raise public expenditures. It is both cruel and tone-deaf in its refusal to recognise or respond to the realities facing Ontario residents and municipalities.

The Government of Ontario should withdraw these provisions immediately and allow municipalities to continue building safe, healthy, and sustainable transportation networks based on evidence rather than ideology.

Ontario deserves policies rooted in reality, not policies that prioritise cars at the expense of human life and community well-being.